Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 07 December 09 >

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per consensus without delete votes. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheGenealogist[edit]

TheGenealogist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While there are third-party sources listed, they're not particularly strong (Family Tree magazine and one book not affiliated with the authors). Created by single-purpose likely WP:COI account. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like it might be a valid article if better sources could be found and some of the more promotional material (e.g. Genealogy Supplies (Jersey) Ltd) removed. I'm not sure why this one, out of all those listed at Category:British genealogy websites, has to be deleted, other than to punish the COI editor who created it. A lot of folks in the UK use this site and some facts about it would still be useful. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC) p.s. if there is a WP:COI issue with this article (described as "likely" above), shouldn't this be clearly marked on the Talk page? Also, I'd value the opinion of Ritchie333, who accepted the article back in 2013. Thanks.[reply]
Weak Keep: (Disclosure: I issued the DEPROD on this nom.) Article is decidedly in need of improvement, including refimprove; however, I note as well that, per article talk page, creation was "reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation," which then rated the article as Start-class and formally accepted it over eight years ago. The standard to meet is WP:WEBCRIT. The autogenerated template link for Google Scholar lists 114 hits, some of which are likely suitable for inclusion as additional references and/or evidence of notability; however, I also note that there are some of those are false positives, mentioning Thegenealogist.com or "the genealogist" as an abstract entity instead. Caveat editor. That said, "Women, Work and the Victorian Press" describes TheGenealogist.co.uk as among "the most prominent" subscription-based genealogy websites. —KGF0 ( T | C ) 22:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Goguen[edit]

Michael Goguen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was created to promote tabloid coverage of living person lawsuits. Non notable other than his legal and tabloid issues. Gentry862 (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is plenty of non-tabloid coverage CNBC, TechCrunch, Yahoo News. Alaexis¿question? 19:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those articles are still about his salacious lawsuits and legal issues. Maybe this is more WP:CRIME issue for if all he is known for is his legal issues I do not think notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Gentry862 (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see any restrictions on the nature of coverage in WP:BASIC as long as the said coverage is significant. Alaexis¿question? 10:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Billionaire involved in some scandals, clearly meeting GNG. Clear up BLP issues separately. LondonIP (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While there are definitely improvements that could be made to the article, this guy is definitely notable. Remember, WP:SIGCOV has nothing to do with what you personally find significant, but rather what reliable sources cover in a non-trivial manner. Yitz (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This guy is notable because he is, objectively, one of the most successful Venture Capitalists, ever. During his time as Partner at Sequoia Capital 1996-2016, he sponsored 54 investments with a combined market value of over $64B. Zulu roger (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Certainly seems to be enough RS to support GNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. So if a billionaire is involved in lawsuits he becomes less notable? This logic eludes me. Passes the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article puts waaaay too much weight on sexual abuse allegations, this guy isn't a public figure—although he is popular in the tabl-oids, I'll grant that. However, there does seem to be enough coverage in reliable sources outside of all that to give a gng pass anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 07:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Milana Keller[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Milana Keller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article was deleted in 2019 after an AfD concluded that she did not meet WP:GNG or WP:NMODEL. In the new version, only one source (the trivial profile on models.com) comes from after the AfD. Having done a search, I believe that her claim to notability has not changed since 2019. Hence, the article should be deleted again. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. WCMemail 09:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Pinging Trillfendi, the nom from the original discussion, to see if they think the article's sourcing has sufficiently improved. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am curious about the reasoning here and the Teahouse recommend I ask my question directly here. She is walking in shows that are the top of her field, so that would seem to me to meet the WP:ENTERTAINER requirement for models. I would love to understand better why it doesn't or if the WP:GNG supersedes it. Thanks! FiddleheadLady (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting question. I take it you are referring to Criterion No. 1 WP:NMODEL, where it says that subjects should have been part of 'notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other production[s]'. The criterion doesn't make it clear whether fashion shows fall under this criterion. The question we should be asking, then, is whether fashion shows are equivalent to, say, a film or a TV show (since these are what the criterion looks to). I personally don't know enough about the industry to answer this question. My rationale for deleting comes from the following angle: all topics in Wikipedia should in the first place be measured against GNG. Most SNG are there to help us find topics that have garnered the kind of quality and depth of coverage that the GNG calls for. In Keller's case, (in additon to the SNG claim being doubtful) there is no significant high-quality coverage. Hence I believe we should delete the article. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the quotation from WP:N about SNG and GNG that's in the background of my view: 'The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia.'
That makes sense to me. I know in fields that there isn't likely to be significant coverage than the specific topic notability guidelines are important to consider, but I think for models coverage would be likely and therefore GNG should apply first like you say! Thank you for taking the time to explain to me as I am still learning. FiddleheadLady (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There's nothing in this article that supports her to be notable - the RS certainly don't support it currently. Many models will be included in big shows... but that doesn't mean they all automatically get a wiki page and meet the criteria for a page under WP:NMODEL Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom fails WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 18:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soot tags[edit]

Soot tags (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable; "sourced" to tweets and such Orange Mike | Talk 16:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soot tags are a rather arcane phenomenon, quite eerie, and illustrative of aerosols. kencf0618 (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well if they're known as something else, then that topic might (or might not) be notable, but "Soot tags" certainly isn't. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is clear that existing identified coverage is not enough to meet notability. If someone wants this for draft space to find more time for RS coverage, happy to do so. Star Mississippi 18:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subhuman (Italian band)[edit]

Subhuman (Italian band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, seems to fail WP:BAND. I can't find significant coverage from reliable sources; just some pieces by metal webzines like this and this which as far as I can tell are not considered RS. No clear claims of notability (being on the second stage of some festivals doesn't mean much) and there's no corresponding entry on the Italian WP. Lennart97 (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Week Keep There seems to oftan be American centrist view point. They seem to be a very popular Italian band. There seems to be a great deal if information online. I even located fan art, not that is a source. Lots of sources in Italian that google translated poorly. Keep for now and tag to for improvement.Super (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 01:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elemenope[edit]

Elemenope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software. No significant coverage, SL93 (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • You´re supposed to do some research before !voting. While hhe company isn´t notable, there is no indication at all that this didn´t exist, as there are enough sources available that mention it. Fram (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some quick google searching brings up scant mention of this software. This could be a promotional page... and the article has zero RS. Nothing to indicate this is notable Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dominica–Turkey relations[edit]

Dominica–Turkey relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage. No embassies, agreements, level of trade is very low at less than $2 million. Even the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs says "Relations between Turkey and the Commonwealth of Dominica have been limited due to geographical distance and different foreign policy priorities of both countries. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Clearly evidenced as receiving significant coverage for an extended period of time after the event. Fenix down (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester City v. Queens Park Rangers (2012)[edit]

Manchester City v. Queens Park Rangers (2012) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is a long standing consensus that an article on a single match must have special circumstances to qualify for an article. I fail to see how this passes that which is WP:ROUTINE. Govvy (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Hi, can you explain how this article differs from something like a cup final in terms of WP:ROUTINE, especially considering that this match clinched the Premier League for Manchester City? Is it because this match was a regular season game, which, given slightly different season turnout, may have been completely insignificant? Dazzling4 (talk) 03:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Dazzling4 Other than clinching the title it's very basic in its output. There is Man City's main article, that season's article also which has the information on, you don't need an article on the one game. This information is housed in multiple other places already. Govvy (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - dashiellx (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Dazzling4 (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the match has been subject to analysis and coverage both in the UK and abroad long after the immediate aftermath eg this from 2017, this from 2020, this from 2020, this from 2021. I believe the likes of these set it above the level of other title-clinching matches, most of which I agree are unremarkable in their own right -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chris, although article title will need sorting to match standard naming conventions. GiantSnowman 17:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Received significant coverage in the UK, and this match arguably produced the greatest moment in Premier League history. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Even as a Manchester United fan, I can appreciate the significance of this game. The first Premier League title to be decided on goal difference, and to be decided with basically the last kick of the game makes this game eminently special. Not sure the two !delete votes above should count considering they haven't provided a rationale. – PeeJay 21:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly one of the most notable matches in the history of the Premier League which is still regularly the subject of much coverage and indeed with Liverpool 0–2 Arsenal (1989) one of the most significant league football matches in English football history. The article as it stands probably need work, but that is not a reason for deletion. Dunarc (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it gets sustained coverage years after the event, as being one of the most dramatic late finishes to a season ever. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above one of the greatest last day matches has received significant coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - with a decade of hindsight, I think Aguero's goal is the most dramatic moment in Premier League history. Plus it was essentially a cup final with City and United level on points and City needing to match United's win and were down a goal in stoppage time. This article should be completely overhauled though as it does not adequately do the match justice IMO. Rupert1904 (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ChrisTheDude and Dunarc. Agree with GiantSnowman, article should be renamed, I think to Manchester City F.C. 3–2 Queens Park Rangers F.C. (2012) per naming conventions though I may be wrong. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with you ItsKesha about the proposed name change. I see in the history of the article that it was originally titled when the page was created last month that but it was subsequently changed. Rupert1904 (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of Basshunter[edit]

Outline of Basshunter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a WP:OUTLINE article for a topic that clearly does not need one - there is no way that the topic of a moderately prolific artist like this needs an outline as a navigational aid. One quick look at the so far small category Category:Outlines of people that holds biographical outlines will tell you how much the article on Basshunter is the odd one out here. I'll admit that I wasn't able to find actual notability criteria for outline articles, but my common sense tells me that you want an outline for Frank Zappa or The Beatles, not this... EditorInTheRye (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I missed Template:Basshunter, yet another fairly unnecessary navigational tool for the musician. Thoroughness is a virtue, but repetitiveness isn't. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Doomsdayer520: I just created Outline of Basshunter because such outlines as Outline of Bob Marley, Outline of Henry Ford or Outline of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (especially in this form) and all other outlines of people exist (Category:Outlines of people). In my opinion there was enough material to create such outline so I have tried and created it. Outline of Bob Marley has listed awards but I think they should be in biography. @EditorInTheRye: Anyone can create outline for Frank Zappa or The Beatles. Why not? Eurohunter (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The point we're trying to make here is that outlines aren't automatically required for anyone with a Wikipedia article (note how that category has some extremely famous people in it?). The examples (including Bob Marley) are subjects who have been widely influential outside of just being a musician. In the case of Basshunter, the typical musician article structure with the few satellite articles (that doomsdayer520 listed) provides plenty of navigability as it is. EditorInTheRye (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At Wikipedia:Outlines there are some clear rules about topics (including people) that may need an outline article for navigational purposes. Such an article is not meant to be a mere list, and this one about Basshunter is just a slimmer version of other lists about him. Eurohunter asked "Why not?" The much better question is "Why?" There are other lists of Basshunter's works, those are more comprehensive than this outline, and this outline serves no navigational purpose that is not already handled elsewhere (a lot). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Way too little known for an outline article and not very much to say about him besides his music. Sjö (talk) 10:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. per consensus, lacking evidence of notability, and per past AfD consensus that being a referee does not inherently connote notability. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Courtney (referee)[edit]

Mark Courtney (referee) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, as I can't find any significant coverage of this referee, only passing mentions. Refereed at FIFA World Cup qualifers and UEFA Cup group stage matches, but as far as I can tell this does not grant a referee automatic notability. Sourced only to football databases. Lennart97 (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following this AfD, there was this discussion where there was clear consensus that referees are not inherently notable and needed to meet WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't located that discussion before my nomination but came to the same conclusion based on some threads in the WT:FOOTY archives. Is there any chance this consensus could be mentioned at the football notability guideline? Lennart97 (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandvox[edit]

Sandvox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet the GNG. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karelia Software[edit]

Karelia Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Company that doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Its only real coverage in secondary sources is brief mentions about being 'sherlocked' (eg [1][2]), but this is not enough to even meet the GNG. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grenada–Turkey relations[edit]

Grenada–Turkey relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The relations do not seem significant. No embassies, trade less than 1 million USD. Much of the article isn't about relations with Turkey, and I had to chuck out a large section of WP:REFBOMB further reading that didn't pertain to relations with Turkey either. Geschichte (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Yellow Second#Discography as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 19:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June One[edit]

June One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable, no reviews from reliable sources Artem.G (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm thinking about nominating the band for deletion.. Geschichte (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Diablo (band)#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elegance in Black[edit]

Elegance in Black (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable, no reviews from reliable sources Artem.G (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Corn Mo#Recording as Corn Mo as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 19:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I Hope You Win![edit]

I Hope You Win! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable, no reviews from reliable sources, no reviews on allmusic or discogs that are cited in the article Artem.G (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Aquagen. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nightliner (album)[edit]

Nightliner (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable, no reviews from reliable sources, no reviews on allmusic or discogs that are cited in the article Artem.G (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Aquagen. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weekender (album)[edit]

Weekender (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable, no reviews from reliable sources, no reviews on allmusic or discogs that are cited in the article Artem.G (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Aquagen. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abgehfaktor[edit]

Abgehfaktor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable, no reviews from reliable sources, no reviews on allmusic or discogs that are cited in the article Artem.G (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 16:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shantytown, Nevada[edit]

Shantytown, Nevada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doing WP:BEFORE I found some evidence that there is a place that exists called Shantytown, but it does not seem to have any legal recognition and the best I could find for it is an obituary where the person is from Shantytown. All other references seem to be as a location for Ruby Lake Campgrounds, but regardless I cannot find anything that pushes it across WP:GEOLAND.(Nomination withdrawn) snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 18:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given discovery of good reporting (albeit local) we should keep this article. Mangoe (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cxbrx - My issue here is that both of these articles are in the same source (Elko Free Press) but at the same time, yeah, it does look like there's an article to be written here so I'm leaning keep. I'll try to edit the article based on these sources and see where that gets us. Entirely sympathise with snood1205 on this one, though, because there are way, way, way too many of these garbage content-less stubs and something like this really should never have been created. Wikipedia is not a gazetteer. FOARP (talk) 09:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Turns out the 1994 story was just a re-run of the same 1993 piece so I discarded it, but the 1993 story plus the 2002 story, plus some additional sources, just about gets this one over the notability line in that it's possible to write a narrative history of the place. Is it very notable? No, clearly not - it's a place where maybe 10-15 people live permanently - but notability has never been a very high bar which makes the failure of so many of these mass-produced stubs to meet it even more damning. Thanks especially to Cxbrx's newspaper sources. FOARP (talk) 10:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Really nice work here in finding these sources Cxbrb! I did not come across these in my WP:BEFORE so feel free to trout me. These do seem like enough for a keep to me. I'm unsure at this point if I can withdraw with Mangoe's comment, but if it is still an option I would withdraw. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 12:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mangoe - are you OK for snood1205 to withdraw? FOARP (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there seems to be enough documentation here. Mangoe (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to FOARP for editing the article, I was not sure if I wanted to put in the time if the article was to be deleted. I also feel that including the references in the deletion article is a good practice because they are preserved for future editors. I agree that the second article was basically a reprint and I probably should have noted that. Snood1205: thank you for the offer of a trouting (which would be my first trouting!), but I'm still a bit on the fence on this one, so I see the value of having a discussion. If this place was a fishing camp in Delaware, would it pass? I'm not so sure. However, for me, the fact that there are multiple articles helps meet the requirements. I do think this is a borderline case and different editors at a different time might feel differently. As perhaps I've written in the past, notability might also depend on isolation, for example, a phone booth in the middle of nowhere might be notable, whereas each phone booth in a bank at an airport is probably not notable. The same perhaps goes for communities - the only community for a great distance is perhaps notable whereas a burbclave that is adjacent to many other burbclaves might not be notable. This is just my opinion... Cxbrx (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wraith (band)[edit]

Wraith (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I prodded this page with the following rationale:

The one source used in the article does not demonstrate the band's notability. In a WP:BEFORE search, I have not found any substantial coverage of them; I believe this is an uncontroversial failure to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBAND"

Now, it has been pointed out that their 2017 album Revelation has received many reviews on hard rock websites (including [3], [4], [5] and others). This may confer notability on their album if the sources are reliable. Given that no significant coverage of the band itself has been brought forward, I believe that the above rationale still applies. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The album itself doesn't have an article and I don't think it would be good to have an album article without the band article as well. Rather than deletion, this article ought to be improved to include the sources and information on the album. NemesisAT (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eran Ben-Shahar[edit]

Eran Ben-Shahar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promo piece (autobio?) of somebody with zero notability. How is it possible that this has been on WP since 2007? Schwede66 17:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Schwede66 17:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article contains no reliable secondary sources; I don't think a few short radio interviews establish notability. I've conducted the usual WP:BEFORE searches (normal Google, Google Books, Google News and Google Scholar) and found nothing. Appears to fail the WP:BIO criteria. I note that the user who created the article, Moshe buchrai (talk · contribs), has worked on nothing else and the only other substantive edits to the page have been made by anon IP editors. Likewise, somewhat astonished that this has remained without challenge for 14 years, but I suppose very few people would have been looking at the article in the first place. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Similar findings to the above. An article on a guy with a fantasy. Contents and references are a complete disaster. I have NOT looked elsewhere because, even if we could hypothetically piece the WP:GNG together (not checked, just for the sake of the argument), WP:TNT would take clear preference. Exceptionally, the point of web searches is mute. Kudos to User:Schwede66 for the nomination! gidonb (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No consensus for deletion, and no consensus on whether keeping or merging is preferable. Any user is free to start a merge discussion outside of AFD. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LifeWiki[edit]

LifeWiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable website. The most independent coverage I can find is a passing mention in NYT article. I don't think it's worthy of a mention on Conway's Game of Life, but if so it could be a redirect there. (t · c) buidhe 17:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-The article is under construction, and LifeWiki can become notable. Nononsense101 (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete it's not even a stub, the whole article just says that this site exists. Also seems to be not notable, if it become notable later is unknown and shouldn't be counted now. Artem.G (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The stubby and undersourced state of the article as found by Artem was because Buidhe nominated this for their deletion, as their first action concerning this article, approximately one hour after its initial creation, at a time when it was tagged by an "in progress" banner. This WP:BITEy behavior seems likely to have discouraged the contributor who was creating the article from further contributions. At best, this should have been draftified, but even then only after waiting an adequate time to ensure that it was not still actively under construction. In any case, I have added seven sources to the article, none of which are LifeWiki itself, and in the process expanded it from a one-line sub-stub to a proper stub. Five of the seven are of unimpeachable reliability (the NYT, three published books, and one published journal article); the other two are web sources which I think don't contribute to notability but are adequate for the content they source. The only reason my keep is weak is that none of the coverage is particularly in-depth, but I think that collectively it adds up to enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • A passing mention does not count for notability. I checked all the sources cited; some are paywalled but this self-published website is the only one that goes beyond a passing mention. IMO it is better to delete than draftify an article when the fundamental problem is lack of notability, that can't be fixed by editing. Doing it sooner rather than later avoids wasting the creator's time. (t · c) buidhe 23:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep or (possibly preferable) merge to Conway's Game of Life. The sources are enough to show that it's a significant part of the community of Game-of-Life enthusiasts. Shuffling the content over into the GoL article itself wouldn't overburden it, since we're talking about two short paragraphs. Now that decent sources have been found and the text has been written, there's no reason to get rid of them; the question is where to put them. XOR'easter (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the creator of the article, I want to point out that deleting it soon can discourage me. And, as David Eppstein said, such behavior is BITEy.Nononsense101 (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you know enough about Wikipedia to tell someone not to bite you, you aren't a newcomer. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 20:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Conway's Game of Life. XOR'easter puts it perfectly; it seems fairly significant but not necessarily notable enough for its own article, so tucking it into its parent article makes sense. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 20:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Conway's Game of Life Not notable means it doesn't deserve its own article. It can be merged into Conway's Game of Life, and that's OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nononsense101 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. Passes GNG and WP:WEBCRIT per sources added by David Eppstein. A merge outcome isn't necessary per notability policy, and I therefore oppose merge on the principal that merge proposals deserve their own space outside of AFD. A merge discussion could always be raised after this AFD closes without the threat of deletion influencing its outcome.4meter4 (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Electrokinematics theorem[edit]

Electrokinematics theorem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability - seems to have been created by the author or an associate. Entirely sourced from primary sources, not widely cited. PianoDan (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's more literature here than there is for cut-insertion theorem, but not by enough to make a difference. I can't make a case that this is a meaningfully separate topic from Shockley–Ramo theorem; discussing the more obscure generalizations of a theorem in the article on that theorem keeps material from getting too fragmented, and this isn't even the only way that the Shockley–Ramo theorem has been generalized [6]. Both candidate titles ("electrokinemtics theorem" and "Ramo–Shockley–Pellegrini theorem") are too obscure to serve as helpful redirects, and the existing text is too unclearly written to be worth preserving by even a selective merge. XOR'easter (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per this rationale. SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cut-insertion theorem[edit]

Cut-insertion theorem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article created by single purpose account, likely the author of the theory or one of their associates. Not widely cited, no evidence of notability. PianoDan (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete By all available indications, it's one guy's idea that has not had significant uptake or influence. The most substantial commentary I can find pretty much says that it's not worth fussing about: The cut-insertion theorem is not an independent theorem and the equivalent networks may be obtained by a simple extension of the substitution theorem. The practical application of the cut-insertion theorem for calculation of the transfer parameters of equivalent feedback system is difficult: the expressions for them are very cumbersome, and the crucial, for these calculations, impedance Zq of the inserted two-port is found for the simplest networks only. Other than that, citations are passing mentions, and not many of them. Nothing suggests it needs a dedicated article. XOR'easter (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per this rationale. SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to LEAP Legal Software. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LawConnect[edit]

LawConnect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software. I was able to find a lot of coverage for a racing sailboat called LawConnect (possibly sponsored by the company?) but nothing substantial about the product in independent sources. (t · c) buidhe 16:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lessons in Dissent[edit]

Lessons in Dissent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A few local media companies mentioned this film when it came out in 2014 and then nothing subsequent. Seems a complete failure of WP:10YT Simonm223 (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Also note that WP:10YT is not the guideline but just supplements. The movie has RS to support GNG, has movie review by newspaper, etc. Instead , i can't assume good faith on people (more than one editor) keep nominating pro-democracy (so called anti-China if they think anti-CCP is anti-China) related articles for Afd. Matthew hk (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's a wild failure of WP:AGF and I'd appreciate it if you would strike through the inaccurate assertions regarding my motivation in nomming a minor documentary film with no evidence of sustained relevance for deletion. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deletion rationale cited is not Wikipedia policy, but just an explanatory supplement. DonaldD23 talk to me 08:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Happy to restore to draft if requested. Fenix down (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! Borowski has now appeared in I liga, therefore meeting the WP:NFOOTBALL criteria. Would it be possible to restore the page to draft? Take care! KibolLP (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for editing this page - tried reaching out through your Talk page, but the message was deleted without reply. KibolLP (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Filip Borowski[edit]

Filip Borowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was sent to draft on a WP:TOOSOON basis and appears to have been prematurely moved back. Still doesn't pass WP:NFOOTBALL as his cup games against Garbarnia Kraków and Znicz Pruszków do not count as, in both cases, the opposition team was playing in the II liga, which is not listed at WP:FPL. Aside from that, he gets a lot of Google News hits but none of these articles actually seem to address Borowski in any great detail. Similar lack of detailed coverage in a Polish source search. None of the current references seem to demonstrate WP:GNG either. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Hi, I would be fine with this article being deleted - I was surprised to see it accepted in the first place. Apologies for creating it too soon, I was not fully aware of the relevance rules when submitting it for review. Take care everyone. - KibolLP (talk) 10:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KibolLP no worries, our notability criteria can certainly be confusing at times. FYI you are more than welcome to maintain these sorts of things in your own user space or draft space (e.g. at User:KibolLP/Filip Borowski) if you are worried about losing your work, otherwise, you can always ask an admin to restore at a later date if and when Borowski becomes notable. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Salem, Tamil Nadu#Geography. Page history is retained if anyone considers anything worth merging. Hog Farm Talk 14:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geography of Salem, Tamil Nadu[edit]

Geography of Salem, Tamil Nadu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article duplicated content of Salem, Tamil Nadu article, that was forked unnecessarily without giving any reason or discussion by a user obsessed with edit counts. For now there is not enough content to merit a separate article on Geography. Creator reverted the redirect. Venkat TL (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Lindsey Davis. There is clearly consensus against keeping an article about the fictional character. But there is also no consensus here for making an article about his book series out of what we have. The people who propose this merely assert that the series is notable (to the extent they make any arguments); but they do not tell us which sources establish notability, which would be needed because the series's notability is also being contested. At any rate, the title is a reasonable search query, so a redirection to the author makes sense as an WP:ATD. This also allows interested editors to create a (well-sourced, notability-establishing) series article out of the history, if this is possible. Sandstein 09:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Didius Falco[edit]

Marcus Didius Falco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional character of questionable notability. The sources provided are all primary/self published. In my own search, I'm not seeing any significant independent coverage to indicate the character satisfies WP:GNG. Redirection is appropriate in my opinion, but this has been contested in the past so a formal discussion is needed Polyamorph (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a couple of independent sources and an external link. PamD 10:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw it has become clear to me that this is a notable book series. This requires cleanup/splitting/moving, but these are not deletion issues. Polyamorph (talk) 12:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Polyamorph: They are also a good read: not grand literature but well written, accurately researched, and fun. Give them a try. PamD 12:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks PamD, I think I will! Polyamorph (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy/Draftify The references are terrible. Having a website on the Falco novels myself, I would split off the Flavia Albia books (Falco rarely appears) and send this back to draft for better references. Not enough research has been done here. --Whiteguru (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Lindsey Davis. The references don't seem to support the assumption that either the character or the series is notable, but a plot summary+adaptations sections could for now be used to beef up the article about the author, which can discuss the series until it becomes notable enough to deserve a stand-alone article (if ever). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is it the character or the book series that is actually notable? Most of the references are about the latter, not the former. They don't demonstrate the notability of either, by the way. Avilich (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename and split, as first suggested by User:PamD. The series is extremely notable. "Falco series" is more often used than "Falco novels" or "Falco mysteries", although all three are legitimate. Also split off the Albia series as suggested. BTW this is also how the template is organized. See (and after splitting link) left-hand side.

gidonb (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discusss whether this should be reworked as an article about the series or merged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect. Article by and large fails WP:PLOT, and most of what is said in the rather trivial Reception section concerns the series rather than the character. There seems to be nothing close to significant coverage of the character to satisfy GNG. If better sources are actually found, this can be redone at a later date, and an article on the series can be started from scratch rather than through a split. Avilich (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Avilich. The character has virtually no coverage in reliable third party sources, leaving nothing here that would be appropriate for an article. There are signs that the character may belong to a notable book series. But the book series is a different topic and should be written as such. I wouldn't understand the value of keeping this, but if it is, it would need to be completely rewritten from scratch. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an article about the series (which it essentially already is). I'm surprised we're still discussing this after the nominator withdrew support. pburka (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The series hardly seems to be notable either: most of the individual book articles in the above template seem to be 100% plot summaries and fancruft, and the sourcing in the portrayal fiction is very limited, as has been pointed out. Nothing prevents anybody from starting this from scratch, if better sources are indeed available, but so far a convincing rationale for keeping hasn't been shown. Avilich (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is the subject is notable enough for the content to be kept. Whether it's a standalone or merged, and under what name, is a matter of further editorial discussion, but there is no consensus to delete the text. Star Mississippi 19:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19th Century Drinking Horn[edit]

19th Century Drinking Horn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of many drinking horns. Nothing special about this particular one, as shown by the lack of sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Kuba Kingdom#Kuba art - Per my comment below, while this particular piece is not notable enough on its own for an independent article, there is room for the information on the type of object as described in the "Object History" section to be included in a broader topic. So, I am changing my recommendation accordingly. Rorshacma (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have so pathetically few (and mostly poor) articles on African art that I'm not going to be complicit in removing one, although the nominator's arguments are strictly correct. Keen deletionists like to assert that if an article like this is allowed to remain there would be a flood of other ones. In some fields this is true, but absolutely not here. It could easily be merged to drinking horn, or turned into African drinking horn. It would be nice if nominators sometimes gave thought to alternative encyclopedic solutions! Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Necrothesp - why not the Africa-list? Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're welcome to add it yourself! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I never know how. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • {{subst:delsort|Africa|~~~~}} here. Then add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/19th Century Drinking Horn}} to the top of the list. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per well written comment by Johnbod. Wikipedia's African art collection is better with this page in it. The object is on display at a major art museum and has adequate sourcing, not seeing a problem here. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But there is not adequate sourcing. As I mentioned in my comment above, there is only one source that is actually on the specific piece, and it is the description from the museum that is displaying it. The rest of the sources are on the much more general topics of the Kuba Kingdom or on these types of drinking horns in general, not on this specific piece. They don't even mention this specific art piece, and in one case, doesn't even mention this type of art, simply stating the name of the person who sold the piece to the museum in a completely different context. Now, there is certainly an argument to be made that a general article on these types of objects could be valid, or information on these types of objects could be added to Kuba Kingdom for sure. But, an entire article on a single example that has no sources showing that it, in specific, is a notable example would not be the proper way to do it. Rorshacma (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An exhibiting museum's description is usually a major source in visual arts articles, enough to establish notability for the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not if its the only valid source on a topic, given that the WP:GNG requires multiple reliable sources. And again, its the only source presented here that is on this specific piece. Rorshacma (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for museum verification of visual arts entries. The GNG guideline has no set number, and states "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." On visual arts pages a major museum like the Art Institute of Chicago vouching for and exhibiting the piece establishes notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Verification and notability are two different things. Nobody is doubting that the information here is correct or valid, simply that the object, as an individual art piece, is not a notable enough topic for an independent article. Even Johnbod, whose argument you are citing as your reason for keeping, admits in his post that the nomination is strictly correct, and the argument to keep is an WP:IAR situation. Rorshacma (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, the Art Institute of Chicago page and on-exhibit status takes care of all of that. And am I mistaken or does a source place this object on exhibition loan to The Met in 2012-2013? Randy Kryn (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I was doubtful about this and note there is nothing about it in the article drinking horn, which should perhaps be rectified. I would suggest as more specific name, such as Kuba drinking horn, reflecting its provenance. A map showing where DRC is, rather than where Kuba is/was is unhelpful. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the name is useless, but that can be dealt with later. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There's nothing notable enough about it for it's own page, but it fits in nicely over at Kuba art. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 08:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Winged Victory of Samothrace in popular culture[edit]

Winged Victory of Samothrace in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Per WP:POPCULTURE, this is an unnecessary article spinout. The guideline itself says, "Attempt to pare the section down first. In some cases, the section is not so much a new article as it is just bloated." This is mostly just trivia and if pared down, can easily fit into the parent article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly oppose. This appears to be a perfect example of what an "in popular culture" article should be about—the influence of an important, well-known, or highly visible artifact that has widely influenced art, design, or aesthetics elsewhere. WP:POPCULTURE discusses "passing" or "trivial mentions", such as a character on a TV show alluding to a subject that otherwise has no relevance to the plot, or a brief glimpse of something in the background, which likewise has no particular significance. The fact that an ancient statue is widely copied for use in major venues, as an architectural icon, or a symbolic device, is the exact opposite of what WP:POPCULTURE is describing. These are obviously not "passing" or "trivial mentions" such as those described on that page. It's worth noting that while that page indicates that the same basic criteria apply to both sections and stand-alone articles, it also notes that sections of this type that become lengthy may be split off into separate articles. That's what's happened here, where a lengthy set of seemingly valid examples of the sculpture's influence might become unwieldy as a section of the article about the sculpture itself. "Paring it down" solely for the purpose of folding it back into the article about the sculpture seems to be again, the exact opposite of what WP:POPCULTURE is talking about. I'll also note that WP:INDISCRIMINATE has absolutely no application here, and seems to have been thrown in solely because it sounds like it would apply. This article isn't even related to what that guideline is talking about. P Aculeius (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per P Aculeius's well written and reasoned comment, a joy to read. The well-sourced page reflects the cultural and important heritage of the original statue, and is similar to, and can take its place alongside of, List of The Thinker sculptures, Replicas of the Statue of Liberty, Replicas of Michelangelo's David, Replicas of Michelangelo's Pietà, and Mona Lisa replicas and reinterpretations. I've thanked the editor who created it, nice work. The nom quotes a guideline too often used to delete well-built and culturally important article entries. Hopefully not this time. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is contemptible garbage. What does it tell you about the sculpture? Nothing. It is a concatenation of pointless trivia. I wasn't going to express an opinion about keeping this, because keep it or delete it this fork was merely a way of flushing a lot of unencyclopedic nonsense from the parent article where it has no place. I optimistically thought that would be obvious. But if other editors are going to insist on duplicating this cruft in the main article then there is even less reason for keeping this fork.Twospoonfuls (εἰπέ) 12:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait a minute, you created this fork. I am really confused here if you are accepting the AfD. Was there any reason for the fork? I see it seems like a copy and paste from Winged Victory of Samothrace § Modern copies and derivative works
    A removal or trimming of the section hasn't been agreed upon? It wouldn't be hard to remove some of the content due to WP:INPOPULARCULTURE and specifically WP:IPCEXAMPLES. – The Grid (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I was trying to avoid edit-warring on the parent article. Pop trivia is, I've learned from experience, something people are overly attached to and don't take kindly to being told is rubbish. The fact that this fork has been copy-pasted back into the parent article seems to vindicate my view, but has failed to solve the problem of getting rid of the stuff. And it is rubbish; it is a list of public sculpture and museum plastercasts along with a mention in a pop video and game. Naively I thought that its triviality would be self-evident when dumped into its own article, and that article would then be quietly deleted. Sorry if I've needlessly overcomplicated matters. Twospoonfuls (εἰπέ) 20:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural delete (possibly qualifies under speedy A10) but allow recreation. This discussion is not actually about whether this is a legitimate topic or simply trivia, or whether the content is worth preserving, since the content was forked over from the parent article, and can still be found there. The split was apparently undertaken as an attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff (dumping all the garbage here), not because the parent article was deemed too big. Therefore, this AfD and extra article are just distractions from an editorial concern that should be resolved in the parent article's talk page. The nominator and Twospoonfuls are correct in classifying this as an indiscriminate listing of trivia with no actual discussion of the statue in popular culture, but this should be discussed in the appropriate place, not here. If it's decided there that the parent article is too unwieldy to hold all the information, then the nominated article can be recreated as a proper split. Avilich (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editors who dislike In popular culture sections and entries should just not edit them, much less purposely try to remove them because of their dislike. Many other editors think they serve cultural record keeping and provide historical lineage and long-term and short-term effects on society. Rather than delete, expand and improve. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Expand and improve the parent article, and split only when it becomes unwieldy. What are you even complaining about? You restored what had been removed, and this extra article is just a pointless copy of that, as the author of the split himself stated. Nothing is actually being deleted. If you actually support improving this sort of stuff, you'll vote to delete this malformed split so that interested editors can focus their attentions on one single article. Avilich (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was commenting on editors wishing that it all goes away, parent and split. Yes, as long as they don't try to diminish the information at the main article this one could go. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of the material in this article is of encyclopedic value, nor does it satisfy WP:POPCULTURE. Unless it was substantially rewritten then yes I would make the utmost effort to remove this material from the parent article. I admit I acted in bad faith in creating this article, and I still maintain that this shouldn't be in an encyclopedia, but as a compromise I'd be willing to withdraw my vote if this stuff was kept out of the parent article.Twospoonfuls (εἰπέ) 16:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I meant above, some editors dislike stuff like this intensely while others see great worth in it. Examples and replicas show how different societies and cultures throughout various eras reflect the artwork in their social fabrics. This is an honored and influential statue, and the information under discussion brings it forward in time. The other artwork replica pages above share the same function, as do all good "In popular culture" sections. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you're describing is a section on the WVoS's influence on later art that would contextualise the information. If you want to research and write that be my guest. What we've got is a list of random facts.That's not encyclopedic; a google search for "plastercasts of WVoS" could substitute for this article.Twospoonfuls (εἰπέ) 17:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The replica at Caesars Palace is probably better known in North America than the original (although it lacks the ship's bow). Other replicas and images are well known. People who don't like these type of articles will find reasons why (and no, not all the known examples are made of concrete), and visa versa. The Caesars example alone adds value to keeping the concept (I noticed the Caesars Palace page doesn't have an image of Victory, so I'll go add it and see if it sticks). Randy Kryn (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is ultimately just a list of replicas of the original Winged Victory, written in prose form. However, there is no evidence of a WP:LISTN pass. Instead it has been collected through original research, and is really just a thrown-together collection of things-that-look-like-something. FOARP (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Regardless of whether or not the same material that is already on the main page of Winged Victory of Samothrace should be removed, cleaned up, or remain untouched, the simple fact remains that this specific spinout article is a completely unnecessary WP:SPLIT, and would not even serve as a useful search term for a redirect. The discussion on the appropriateness of the material on the main page can be held on its own talk page, but for this specific spinout article that is just a copy of what is already there, its a clear delete. Rorshacma (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sweety Walia[edit]

Sweety Walia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant role. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. ManaliJain (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel Loco Shed, Ratlam[edit]

Diesel Loco Shed, Ratlam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence could be found to establish notability here. Fram (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to New Katni Junction railway station. Daniel (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel Loco Shed, New Katni[edit]

Diesel Loco Shed, New Katni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability found. Fram (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to New Katni Junction railway station. What isn't a copyvio is already covered at New Katni Junction railway station. No evidence of independent notability outside of as a part of that station. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to New Katni Junction railway station. Based on the online English language sources I've been able to find, this is not independently notable. All the detailed information I can find is either not independent or not reliable. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:. There are multiple entries for similar articles in Category:Railway depots in India and a further 27 entries in Category:Electric railway depots in India. These articles all cite loco rosters for references; and shed allocation rosters by Indian Railways. Redirecting to a station is not an option, as the depots are usually a distance from the stations. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, some sheds have articles because some are notable and some haven't been put to the test yet. Others have been deleted at AfD because they weren't notable. Each one should be judged on their own merits. Fram (talk) 08:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's at least a handful of these nominated, more to come. In general while a locomotive works (where railway stock is designed and built - and maybe rebuilt) is likely to be (at least traditionally) notable, a locomotive maintenance shed is not. If an article is a couple of lines of existence prose with an excuse to hang pictures of a locomotives (who have their own article) then its not suitable for a standalone article. Often historic information will be the key; otherwise think of redirects and merges; sometimes to the settlement; perhaps a new article containing information about all the sheds on a line. I confess to being unfamiliar with New Katni but to take an example from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diesel Loco Shed, Pune (I know more about Pune) I have little hesitation that an article entitled Pune locomotive sheds covering sheds from the steam days to present would likely be relative easily notable. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Whiteguru and Fram. Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 02:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Al Hayrsh[edit]

Muhammad Al Hayrsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not satisfy WP:GNG due to lack of reliable independent references that should be in English language. MickyShy (talk) 05:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. To the nominator, please include an edit summary in future deletion nominations. Geschichte (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Musa River[edit]

Musa River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The reason I have nominated this article for deletion is it does not cite any sources and the place itself doesn't seem to have any clear and reliable sources on the internet. Albatroxide (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Rationale appears to be correct, since a Google search reveals that this river does not have much coverage other than obscure, unsecure sites. Philosophy2 (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 08:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore all rules[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ignore all rules (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Somehow Wikipedia's least notable policy has a separate article about it. The sources on the article are either from the Wikimedia Foundation (not independent) or from news outlets talking about Wikipedia (non-reliable). It seems to not have any actual coverage that is about the rule itself; any source that mentions it does so in passing. The General notability guideline states that an article must have significant coverage to be notable, then defines "significant coverage" as something that "addresses the topic directly and in detail" and is "more than a trivial mention". All sources on this article are a trivial mention. Philosophy2 (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia can be notable in the outside world, and if people write about it, we can too. And people write about it. The notion that "news outlets talking about Wikipedia" are by default "non-reliable" is fallacious. To call "all" sources in the article trivial, makes me seriously question the nominator's judgement. Geschichte (talk) 09:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as a major writer. There is substantial coverage of the concept from several different angles: the history of the rule; analysis of the rule and its meaning; specific analysis of usage in practice (e.g. how it applies to AfD). I don't know that I can outline this better than the article does. Of course the Wikipedia references are not intended to contribute to notability. Other sources evidence non-trivial mentions (it's not the only topic covered in the sources, but there is major coverage). I've no idea why it's our "least notable policy" when it is the one of the most historically rich, and remains extremely regularly cited. I also don't understand what's unreliable about Slate.
    There's a real WP:BEFORE failure in assessing what "seems to" be the case with the sources given—the nominator should be able to access them all, I believe, and also has a responsibility to search for more if they find the current ones lacking. I would be surprised if they have read sources such as the (in-depth) American Behavioral Scientist study. — Bilorv (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. News organizations can be reliable, and this is covered by academia too like [9] and [10].--Mvqr (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, the WP:GNG is clearly met with third-party reliable sources. BD2412 T 23:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep with a side order of FISH - Well sourced with SIGCOV from secondary sources. Rationale, in my best assumption of good faith, reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 17:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not of interest to the average reader. Minkai(rawr!)(see where I screwed up) 19:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic has more than passing coverage in reliable sources. As Bilorv points out, the Elizabeth Joyce et al. paper is centred around IAR and its role as "a fundamental component of individual agency." Guettarda (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I thought this would be a no-brainer keep but there's multiple articles about Ignore all rules: the central Wikipedia Project namespace page but then there's a directory of essays about IAR. I get this is the point of IAR but I can see the unintentional confusion here. The article namespace version is the article about the Wikipedia policy. – The Grid (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid I'm not following, The Grid. Nothing you've linked to is an article (i.e. a page in the article namespace). Notability and article content is independent to Wikipedia namespace content (there's no content transfer between the two), and the matter of disambiguating, linking and better organising WP namespace content is separate to an AfD conversation. — Bilorv (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a concept the secondary literature about Wikipedia keeps coming back to as a way to explain the Wikipedia. /Julle (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Scotia Sport Hall of Fame[edit]

Nova Scotia Sport Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While quite a few provincial sports halls of fame have great, well-sourced articles written on them, I doubt whether this page would meet WP:GNG and/or WP:ORGIND.

Only source cited (the Hanson Dowell one) focusses on a particular inductee's achievements rather than the Hall of Fame itself. Not many other external sources on Google, either (https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/n-s-sport-hall-of-fame-announces-this-year-s-induction-list-1.5632332 is too short to provide much information). NotReallySoroka (talk) 07:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this does seem to have fewer articles about it than your average Provincial HOF, but I do think that it just passes WP:GNG per my source table here: snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 13:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/nova-scotia-sports-hall-of-fame-seeks-new-home-1.5744791 Yes While CBC is state-owned, it is independent in this matter Yes CBC is generally reliable Yes The article is wholly about the Hall of Fame ✔ Yes
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/halifaxs-temporary-sidney-crosby-exhibit-too-popular-to-close/article30360931/ Yes The Globe and Mail is not affiliated with the Hall of Fame Yes Per WP:RSP the Globe and Mail is "A paper of record" considered to be generally reliable Yes The article is about an exhibition at the museum ✔ Yes
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/film-about-black-hockey-player-sparks-controversy-with-n-s-sport-hall-of-fame-1.5483378 Yes Same as above per CBC Yes CBC is generally reliable Yes This article is about a controversy between the museum and a film about depictions of race related to the museum in the film. ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Lean Toward Keep There is definitely much room for improvement to the article but the topic has potential additional sources including a CTV article on the annual inductions (here), a Global News story about the museum's relocation (here), and, while it's an opinion piece, a column in the Port Hawkesbury paper arguing for why someone should be inducted which suggests notability (here). It's by no means a slam dunk though and the nominator is correct that media coverage is a little sparse. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - GNG is easily met per SIGCOV by CBC and CTV News. I found these by doing a basic google search, but I see they have been included in the source assessment table above already. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 17:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete while keeping the draft. Geschichte (talk) 11:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shadi Skaf[edit]

Shadi Skaf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 07:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't. His alleged senior NT caps are unsourced. NFT has nothing on him. Per Soccerway and GlobalSportsArchive, he only had 1 bench appearance. --BlameRuiner (talk) 10:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also question the legitimacy of the caps. See NFT as BlameRuiner says above. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the caps can't be verified, then I would support Move to draftspace, as he's playing in an FPL, so could become notable in the near future. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that draft space would be the best place. Hopefully the creator won't move the article back prematurely for a second time. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like this article is an unattributed copy of that userspace draft, so delete (and keep that draft) is probably better for attribution reasons (and because the current draft doesn't have the unsourced claim of senior caps). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Alderson Broaddus Battlers head football coaches. Daniel (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtland Pollard[edit]

Courtland Pollard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage about coach of non-notable team, fails WP:NCOLLATH. Reywas92Talk 05:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 05:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 05:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 05:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect to List of Alderson Broaddus Battlers head football coaches. Not finding SIGCOV. (Finding more about his wife, who was politically active, than about him.) Even obituaries are just very short blurbs. E.g., [11], [12]. Will reconsider if SIGCOV is presented. Cbl62 (talk) 06:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no significant coverage and there seems little prospect of expanding the article. JonnyDKeen (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Reywas92, I believe you are nominating these articles way too fast, similar to what happened a decade ago at WP:CFBWEST (which I read last week and hoped would never happen again). I see you nominated T. G. Yearwood at 05:23 ([13]), Frank Masters at 05:25 ([14]), J. E. Bradshaw seconds later! ([15]), Randolph Howard at 05:32 ([16]), Fred Chenoweth at 05:33 ([17]), Roman Krawchuck at 05:34 ([18]), Bill Latto at 05:37 ([19]), and Courtland Pollard at 05:38 ([20]). That is not enough time to do an adequate BEFORE search and I find this behavior very disruptive. It also seems as if you specifically targeting User:Paulmcdonald's articles, as 15 out of 17 you nominated in the past three days are all his creations. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article was created 18:32, February 16, 2012‎, Bill Latto seconds later at 18:33, Roman Krawchuck at 18:34, Frank Chenowith at 18:35, and Randolph Howard at 18:17. Bradshaw, Masters, and Yearwood were within minutes of each other on December 30, 2008‎, along with 23 more that day (nominations pending). I believe PaulMcdonald was making these articles way too fast. This is not enough time to adequately create articles with significant sources, and I find this behavior very disruptive. Indeed, I am nominating related articles that similarly lack notability and coverage. Why is there a double standard that someone can make dozens of low quality articles at once but I can't nominate them together? Am I expected to wait for one to finish before nominating the next? There are hundreds more of these made under the mistaken belief that all coaches are automatically notable, and you shouldn't be shifting the WP:BURDEN to show notability onto me. Reywas92Talk 16:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Reywas92: while I agree the articles should not have been created in that way, just because Paulmcdonald may have done something disruptive doesn't mean you have to. What I am saying is you should at least do some kind of BEFORE search prior to nominating these articles for deletion, rather than mass nominate them within seconds/minutes of each other, which is not enough time to determine whether or not they are notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • But just as I presume these were written in editspace together before being saved together to be consistent, it's easier to do spot searches together and then click the AFDs than to switch between modes one at a time. Probably not as thorough as you'd like, but yes there was a search on newspapers.com for these for anything obvious. Reywas92Talk 17:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Redirect to List of Alderson Broaddus Battlers head football coaches. I'm unmoved by the speed in which these were AfDed, and I question what precisely anyone finds "disruptive" about it ... except in so far that some people might actually have to get off their duffs and come up with the proper sourcing that should've been included when the articles were created, a decade or more ago. For this article, there are only casual mentions and WP:NOTMEMORIAL refs for a fellow who coached a single season at a tiny college a century ago, and absolutely nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV. Ravenswing 18:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Alderson Broaddus Battlers head football coaches. Not finding enough SIGCOV in my search. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Latto[edit]

Bill Latto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage about single-season coach of non-notable team, fails WP:NCOLLATH. Reywas92Talk 05:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 05:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 05:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 05:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Doing my best to do some quick searches before leaving on vacation. No time to weigh or dig deeper, but here are a few pieces: [21], [22], [23]. Cbl62 (talk) 07:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, easily meets GNG, per the sources listed above by Cbl62 and this, this, this, this, this, this, and multiple other pieces on Newspapers.com. I'll do an expansion of the article soon. Also, Reywas92, what do you mean by "coach of non-notable team"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC) (Cbl62 beat me to it, so I crossed out my sentence about expanding the article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC))[reply]
    • All there is about this non-notable football team is a paragraph at Alderson_Broaddus_University#Athletics. Why the heck would its coaches be assumed to be notable? [24] Passing routine death notice, absolutely not sigcov. [25] Passing description in local paper about college play, not sigcov. [26] Brief description in local paper about college play, not sigcov. [27] Routine passing notice of becoming track coach, not sigcov. [28] Passing notice about being track coach, not sigcov. [29] Passing notice of being college team captain, not sigcov. What a massive failure of both WP:NCOLLATH and GNG still. Newspapers in the 1920s wrote about local news a bit differently than you may find now, but no way in hell would a current/recent player or coach in a low division with this sort of brief mentions pass NSPORT either. Reywas92Talk 03:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because a program doesn't currently have an article does not mean they are non-notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's a decent suggestion that we shouldn't be bulk-producing articles for its coaches! Reywas92Talk 16:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with that, but I still stand by my view that Latto meets the notability criteria. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed with Reywas that the sources above are not sufficient to meet SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really contend that coverage such as this (cited above) does not constitute SIGCOV? Cbl62 (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm for some reason I had assumed Reywas had covered all the suggested sources in their rebuttal, so I'd only opened those, but now I see they only discussed the ones introduced by BF. I agree that that one is likely SIGCOV (my hesitation is from not knowing whether it's independent). I'll strike my !vote for now... JoelleJay (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay: Much respect for your positions generally. Thanks for keeping an open mind. Cbl62 (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's one, GNG requires multiple. This still doesn't pass our notability standards, and I think the local news about the WP:1E of being hired to coach for one season is poor evidence of notability. Reywas92Talk 21:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable per WP:GNG. His one year as head football coach at Broaddus is just a small part of Latto's story. He was one of the best football players ever produced by Bethany College, the only player to be a two-time captain, and was named to their all-time football team in 1961. He also served for many years as Bethany's athletic director, track coach, tennis coach, and freshman football coach. I have expanded the article to reflect this broader scope and to add sources supporting same. Cbl62 (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, one of the best players at a DIII school of 650 students, nice job lowering the bar, still doesn't meet WP:NCOLLATH. Very few college track coaches are notable, very few college tennis coaches are notable, very few college freshman football coaches are notable, very few college athletic directors are notable. I mean, when your school is that small it makes sense to wear multiple hats, but that doesn't add up to notability. Guest of honor at a party at his in-laws' house? These sources aren't significant coverage, what a joke. Reywas92Talk 20:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Latto does not need to meet NCOLLATH, for he appears to meet GNG IMO. Also, do you really think articles such as this are not significant? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reywas: No need to be snide and nasty. It's not the way to persuade folks. Nobody contended that he meets NCOLLATH. And nobody contended that the piece about the party was SIGCOV. You are shooting at red herrings here. But while were on the subject, do you actually contend that this is not SIGCOV? Cbl62 (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not really. It's a local blurb describing who would be coach at the nearby junior college. Big whoop. Local small-town newspapers, especially back in 1922, had plenty of descriptions of people in the community, but I don't see that as enough to have an article about someone who coached a non-baccalaureate school's team for one season. I'd say it's WP:1E. The red herring is stuff like "the only player to be a two-time captain" as if this stat (which leaves out "as of 1923" – how old was their team even, how many students did they have then?) is notable for Wikipedia. Mention him in an article about the football team, without the refbomb trivialities. Reywas92Talk 21:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly suggest you have another read-through of WP:SIGCOV. The article at issue discusses Latto "directly and in detail," and is clearly "more than a trivial mention." Most of your comments (including "what a joke") appear to be more along the lines of WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than analysis based on the guidelines. Cbl62 (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So that's one, not multiple sources, what's the second of substance? GNG is still not met with that. Yes, it's a joke to suggest that "He was one of the best football players ever produced by Bethany College, the only player to be a two-time captain, and was named to their all-time football team in 1961" is relevant to his notability, and a joke to suggest that "He also served for many years as Bethany's athletic director, track coach, tennis coach, and freshman football coach." is relevant to notability. There are how many hundreds and hundreds of colleges and universities with how many tens of thousands of people (in just the US) who have been coaches or star players over the last century? Reywas92Talk 21:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear we don't (and probably won't) see eye to eye, but respectfully your suggestion that contrary arguments are "a joke" don't help to make friends or, more importantly, advance your case. As for SIGCOV, it sounds like you now, reluctantly, agree that (1) this is SIGCOV. Of course, sources are more difficult to find for individuals who lived entirely in the pre-Internet era. Though not as strong as the first piece, other examples of coverage that discuss Latto "directly and in detail," with "more than a trivial mention", include (2) "Uhrichsville Man Honored At Bethany For Football Feats" (four paragraphs devoted to details of Latto's life), (3) "W. T. Latto" (extensive discussion of biographical details), and even (4) "Latto at Bethany" and (5) "Latto Leaves Bethany Place" (each having two full paragraphs discussing Latto's biographical details). Cbl62 (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The obituary (3), right next to those in the paper of Hiram Long, John Adams, and Karl Boyer, was almost certainly submitted by his family and is not independent coverage. 4 and 5 are far too short to be significant. 2 is a routine local mention about "A Ulrichsville resident", hardly significant (especially when each paragraph is a single sentence). Seems to me being in the pre-internet era made it easier to find sources here – you probably wouldn't find that sort of mention in the paper about someone who got a letter in the mail! Reywas92Talk 22:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, we are not going to agree, but your efforts to discount SIGCOV that you don't like are a major stretch. As for 2, your argument that a headline mentioning the city in which a person lives renders the SIGCOV contained therein null and void is not policy-based; it's more "IDONTLIKEIT". That article clearly discusses Latto "directly and in detail," as required by the SIGCOV. As for 3, the article cites two separate obituaries, each of which has distinct content, undermining your unsupported speculation that the piece was "almost certainly submitted to the family" -- why would the family submit different obituaries to different newspapers? That argument just doesn't pass the smell test. As for 4 and 5, two full paragraphs of biographical details is not "too short" -- these are more than "trivial mentions", and as you should know, efforts to quantify the number of sentences or words required to constitute SIGCOV have been rejected by the community. Cbl62 (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect to List of Alderson Broaddus Battlers head football coaches. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Chenoweth[edit]

Fred Chenoweth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage about coach of non-notable team, fails WP:NCOLLATH. A paragraph in his own college yearbook is not independent and does not pass GNG. Reywas92Talk 05:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of adding the photo, with maybe a caption of "Fred Chenoweth, a 1918 graduate of West Virginia University, coached the team from 1925 to 1927", which was why I said "Merge/Redirect". BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable. Cbl62 (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, adding a photo to the list article makes sense. It's out of the scope of this AfD, though. Ravenswing 00:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per consensus regarding lack of coverage or notability. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 01:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Masters[edit]

Frank Masters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage about coach, fails WP:NCOLLATH. Reywas92Talk 05:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 05:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The mass nomination of coaching articles in the past couple days is a bit overwhelming. There's an important issue to be debated, but the issue could be better assessed with time to analyze each case. In my case, I am flying out of the country tomorrow for three weeks, so regrettably my time will be limited in digging through the sources. No time to fully assess and weigh, but here are a couple hits on Masters from Newspapers.com: [30], [31], [32]. As noted in the other AfD about a coach from The Apprentice School, it is significant that this is not a college or university, but rather an apprenticeship school for a private shipbuilding company which, at the time Masters was the coach, had a total enrollment of only 475 students -- smaller than most urban high schools. See here. Cbl62 (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is overwhelming is that this user has created about 1,500 articles on coaches without respect for significant coverage, under the mistaken belief that they are automatically notable. Most of them coached for teams of schools that like this one are very small and do not play at an actually competitive level (and would likely lose to those high schools!). These brief mentions are moreso coverage of what is happening with The Apprentice Builders football team and not biographical. If the team itself isn't notable, why should all of its coaches be? Reywas92Talk 14:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • In December of 2008 (for this article anyway). Why the rush? Why have deletion review all at once on so many? Why do you feel "overwhelemd" by it? I mean, I got barnstars for work like this. Consensus can change, yes... but has consensus changed? Maybe, but I don't see evidence of that--although I do see that there is support for the change. I'm also wondering how you can be so sure what I was thinking while I created (by your count) 1,500 articles over a decade ago. I don't even think I remember what I was thinking I just remember the article creation drive for for the project.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know what you were thinking because you cited Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability when you removed my prods, an essay you wrote but which has not been adopted as a guideline. Consensus has always been that you need multiple independent significant sources for notability, never that low-level coaches are exempt from that. Reywas92Talk 17:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes I wrote a lot of that but a number of others contributed. If you'll take the time to actually read it, you'll find that agrees that WP:GNG is the given standard (referenced I think 10 times on that essay) and that the essay demonstrates why largely head coaches by and large will eventually be found to meet that standard. That's different from "automatic notabily" Oh, and of course the essay hasn't been adopted as a guideline... then it would be a guideline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It takes minutes (seconds maybe) to create an AFD. It takes a lot longer to respond and improve the articles. Mass deletions are still mass deletions. The goal should be wP:Preserve and we should implement WP:Before. The goal is to serve the readers. It is a rigged game. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • 7&6=thirteen, as has been explained to you recently, WP:PRESERVE relates to article contents, not whether there should be an article about a topic or not. The goal of AfD is actually to implement notability standards. And the "game" is not "rigged". Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of your opinions about WP:Preserve. We disagree. You may not see it, but mass deletions stilt the process. We can agree to disagree as to whether this is rigging the system, or merely distorting the AFD process. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my "opinion" regarding WP:PRESERVE, it is the stated purpose of the policy. Also, this was brought to your attention by someone else.

On the other hand, the statement "You may not see it, but mass deletions stilt the process" is purely an unsupported opinion (expressed in a way to belittle my competence that shows a lack of WP:RESPECT despite the final warning you received at AN/I last month).

I disagree with both that it is "rigging the system" AND "merely distorting the AfD process", so please do not try to put words into my mouth.

This AfD thread is probably not the place for it, however I would be interested to discuss your views about bulk nominations, so please see here. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparenty every AFD is now an occasion to challenge me. This is just another distraction. I would suggest you give it a rest. I stand by what I said. I was not "putting words into your mouth." I am not a ventriloquist It was not even directed at you. It's not about you. Take it to ANI if you are feeling lucky. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The comment of yours "we can agree to disagree..." was in reply to my comment, so it seems far fetched for you to now claim that it was not directed at me. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATD which is essentially the corollary to WP:PRESERVE: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page [topic]." The main idea throughout all the policies is not to delete (topic or content) as first resort, rather make an effort to try and preserve and/or improve. Why we have BEFORE and other policies. As for a 'rigged' game well, both deletion and inclusion have their own advantages. Personally I think the system has decent balance of powers, and 7&6 is correctly stating an inclusion power ATD ie. PRESERVE/BEFORE/etc.. while complaining of a deletion power bulk deletion that may or may not have merit. -- GreenC 06:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NCOLLATH. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:SIGCOV. Atrocious wee article. scope_creepTalk 11:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NCOLLATH as only head coaches at Division I programs receive a presumption of notability. The Apprentice School is not such a program -- but rather, as noted above, an apprenticeship school for a private shipbuilding company which, at the time Masters was the coach, had a total enrollment of only 475 students . IMO the topic also fails WP:GNG. I did find some WP:SIGCOV (here) in the Newport News paper (where the apprenticeship school is located), but we should expect to have SIGCOV in multiple, reliable, and independent sources to pass the GNG bar for a coach at a low-level school such as this. Cbl62 (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to The Apprentice Builders#Football would also be fine. Cbl62 (talk) 11:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to The Apprentice Builders#Football. If other sources exist, I can't find them. He is a bare footnote in college athletics, but deserves mention in connection with the program or the college. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Yearwood[edit]

Gene Yearwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage about coach, fails WP:NCOLLATH. Reywas92Talk 05:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Nope. Passing the GNG requires more than namedrops; it requires "significant coverage" about the subject in multiple reliable, independent sources. Of the three new sources, the third is an obituary on a funeral home site, submitted by the family; not independent. All the second says about the subject is that he's "leaving for an out of town job." The first gives no information about the subject, other than that he "has his work cut out for him in his first year as head football coach at the Apprentice School." These single sentence namedrops are the very definition of "trivial mentions" as set forth in WP:GNG. Ravenswing 13:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete GNG requires sources that provide in depth coverage of a person, not merely sourcing that says they are taking the lead of a football team. Also keep in mind if we soured local level newspaper coverage we could find mentions of appointment and leaving of a huge number of high school football coaches, but we have decided that the overwhelming majority of football coaches are not notable. Hometown newspaper coverage of local events is not a good way to pass GNG, and when it is basically just a name drop it is not enough to pass GNG at all. Wikipedia is not meant to be a database of everyone ever named in any paper that had circulation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NCOLLATH, WP:ANYBIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 11:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per consensus, lack of significant coverage or evidence of notability. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 01:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Casper Stevenson[edit]

Casper Stevenson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a young driver who has only competed in very minor series. What coverage there is in reliable sources all seems to be WP:ROUTINE as a part of coverage of the series they have competed in. This Formula Scout and this Autosport article come closest to providing significant coverage, but I believe can still be fairly called routine coverage. As has come up in previous discussions, Formula Scout 's coverage of competitors can almost always be considered routine, even if it is a reliable source which can be considered to provide significant coverage of various junior single-seater series. Similarly, Autosport 's roundups of junior, national, and club racing may be considered significant coverage of the championships or clubs featured, but I don't think they can be fairly called significant coverage of the competitors, even if Autosport is a good source for significant coverage of drivers at higher levels. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MSport1005: Just bombarding passing mentions and routine coverage isn't helping to show notability. The entirety of the discussion of Stevenson in the first example you give is the sentence "Ginetta Junior racer Casper Stevenson has also recently won a scholarship - this time a prize pot worth £35,000 from British F4 and the series' partners." - this could be used as a reference for that fact, but has no relevance to a notability discussion. Your "The Checkered Flag" article ([41]) may be considered substantial coverage, but the way it is written seems as though they want to say as little as possible about Stevenson himself and instead talk about other drivers. The person who gave the award is even quoted as saying "It wasn’t just about the ultimate winner" when referring to the event. A7V2 (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with A7V2 here. Coverage has to be substantial to prove notability, not routine. 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Euroformula Open is an exceedingly minor series which generally receives very little coverage. WP:BLPs require significant coverage of their subjects, not just passing mentions in coverage of the events they participated in. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit of a contradiction, isn't it? I can understand A7V2's and 5225C's comments, but Euroformula Open definitely isn't an "exceedingly minor series". It's immediately below FIA F3, used to be one of the major Formula Three series until it recently switched to the Dallara 320 (built to F1 security standards instead of F3, and much faster than the FR Tatuus) and has always received significant coverage (particularly in Spanish and Italian)... which you seem to accept in your second sentence. The matter with Stevenson, as he has competed in notable series, is whether he has actually received significant independent coverage. MSport1005 (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not speaking on behalf of HumanBodyPiloter5, but in my humble opinion Euroformula Open is a minor series that receives little coverage and publicity. I consider anything below FIA F3 to be minor given F3 itself tends to receive barely enough coverage to justify articles for its drivers. I would place emphasis on your comment that it used to be one of the major Formula Three series – at present, it isn't. Either way I still support deletion here, Stevenson hasn't received the coverage necessary. 5225C (talk • contributions) 14:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at present, it isn't" — well, yeah, because it no longer technically qualifies as a Formula Three series...
    Your previous sentence confuses me: how does F3 receive "barely enough coverage to justify articles for its drivers"? A quick internet search returns in excess of 5 million results, of which roughly one million are news — and that's only for this season. Not that it's relevant to this AfD anyway. MSport1005 (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It only matters how notable the series is now, not how notable it was in the past or how notable previous seasons were. At present, it is small and relatively obscure to those who don't follow junior motorsport. Regarding F3, it does receive plenty of coverage as a series, but in my experience with F3 driver articles this coverage of the series rarely translates into coverage of the competitors. Of course some receive more attention than others, but it's really only at the F2 level that drivers become unambiguously notable. 5225C (talk • contributions) 15:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not share your view regarding F3. As for Euroformula, I understand your point, but within motorsport and not just junior formulae, it's a fairly recognisable and important series. And again, because it seems I didn't come across clear enough: Euroformula remains as notable as ever, what has changed is it's no longer a Formula Three series. MSport1005 (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can confirm it is. If he isn't notable enough yet—which I think he is—, I expect him to be in the near future, so I have opted to save it to the draftspace to keep working on it until then. MSport1005 (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 04:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The autosport piece is a routine weekend races recap with non-significant coverage of Stevenson, who is one of many, many racers whose performance is reported here. None of the other refs offered in the AfD are remotely SIGCOV either:
Coverage of the subject from MSport's list of sources
1: "Ginetta Junior racer Casper Stevenson has also recently won a scholarship - this time a prize pot worth £35,000 from British F4 and the series' partners."
2: "The inaugural F4 Scholarship winner Casper Stevenson was also one to watch. Another Ginetta graduate, he was yet to take the top step of the podium, but he had already convinced Double R Racing and then Argenti Motorsport he was a race-winner in the making... Stevenson finally got the monkey off his back with his first car racing victory at Silverstone. And both Stevenson and O’Sullivan were racking up the podium finishes... O’Sullivan and Stevenson had been whittling away his championship advantage, but not at the rate one would expect when looking at their podium tally."
3: "A trionfare è stato Casper Stevenson, alla sua prima vittoria nella categoria, davanti a Cem Bolukbasi e Filip Kaminiarz."
4: "Also running this winter is Porsche GB’s annual shootout to become one of its junior drivers, and Euroformula race-winner Casper Stevenson is on the longlist of drivers in contention for that."
5: "Casper Stevenson has been crowned victor of the inaugural F4 British Championship certified by FIA – powered by Ford EcoBoost Scholarship prize, after an assessment day at Silverstone... Stevenson, who spent the day with 2019 Teams Cup champions Double R Racing, takes home a £35,000 prize fund to put towards a British F4 campaign in 2020... [quotes by subject]... Stevenson faced stiff competition, with drivers including reigning Ginetta Junior champion James Hedley and Vice-Champion Zak O’Sullivan also taking part in the day."
6: "Two successes for Cameron Das and one for Casper Stevenson in Monza, the penultimate act of the Euroformula Open 2021... RACE-2: CASPER STEVENSON STANDS OUT IN THE WET AND WINS THE ROOKIE TITLE

Second joy in 2021 for Casper Stevenson, master in the rain and new champion in the ranking reserved for rookies... Briton Casper Stevenson (Van Amersfoort Racing) led the line of cars for the first few passes, a situation that remained so even at the green flag.

The situation changed in the last few minutes with the Turkish Cem Bolukbasi (Van Amersfoort Racing) trying to take command of the operations. The # 74 attacked the teammate until the last lap without succeeding in his goal."
7: This is a sponsored press release. Richardson Racing is a client of the article's author, Matt Salisbury, therefore it is not an independent source. This really highlights one of the major challenges in using industry publications for notability.
Since NSPORT is subordinate to GNG, it's irrelevant whether he meets a sport-specific guideline. JoelleJay (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • He doesn't pass WP:NMOTORSPORT anyway. 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple are just passing mentions, as I said. #2 is definitely not routine but I concede it fails NSPORT. I didn't notice #7 was a press release, so apologies for that one. However, #5, #6 and #8 (which interestingly, you overlooked) could be used to establish significant coverage. MSport1005 (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I had opened #8 and then a bunch of tabs tracking down Matt Salisbury and must have closed it when I closed those tabs. #5 and #6 combined have under 180 words of independent coverage directly on the subject, and both are routine reports of race outcomes anyway. #8 is a 125-word blurb among many blurbs on junior motorsport racers by an anonymous author in an outlet that specifically focuses on junior motorsports racers. We have no idea who the staff writers are other than Peter Allen, nor their affiliations, so this non-trivial (but still not significant) source should be only weakly considered for notability purposes. JoelleJay (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All sources are WP:ROUTINE, even #8 that was left out by JoelleJay; a "20 drivers to watch" list that features a small blurb about subject winning a scholarship in a test (not a championship, just some monies to help him sign with a team). Complete lack of SIGCOV from all above sources. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 17:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The "keep" arguments are weak. The three "needs work" / "rename" opinions make no arguments and must be discounted. The two other "keep" opinions advocate a rewrite to make clear the topic is a superstition, but that is much easier said than done: a well-sourced article treating this belief from a neutral "out of universe" perspective would probably be widely supported, but that is not the article we have before us. There are also several "merge" proposals, but these do not address the core argument of the nominator: that this content makes factual claims of a medical nature (i.e., that conception on certain days results in infants of specific genders), and that such content needs WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. It is not contested that this article contains no reliable sources for these claims, instead referencing only a book about astrology. Consequently, the core policy WP:V mandates deletion of this content. This does not prevent the recreation of this article if this can be done based on reliable sources. Sandstein 14:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Garbhadhan (astrology)[edit]

Garbhadhan (astrology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFRINGE. WP:TNT eligible article with massive violation of WP:MEDRS. On the basis of WP:Fringe theory of astrology, the article makes numerous claims (in Wikipedia voice) about Human reproduction, sexual behavior and child physiology. Eg. "Having sex at X hrs will produce Y type of child", "If at the time of commencement of menses the lagna for that moment is aspected by Mars the woman will have sexual union with an evil person; if aspected by the Sun, with a noble ruler and if aspected by Saturn, with a servant." Only source are from unreliable fringe theory books and publishers. The creator is blocked for multiple copyright violations. Venkat TL (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gem of a Quote from article.

"if the woman conceives after the appearance of menses
• on the 4th night she will bear a short-lived son,
• on the 7th night a barren daughter,
• on the 11th night a wretched ugly daughter,
• on the 13th night an evil-minded and disgraceful daughter" Venkat TL (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ingratis this title with disambiguation included is not a plausible search term, hence the redirect is unnecessary and will be a candidate for deletion (according to WP:R#DELETE). Regarding the comments about nom, please know that nom is a Hindu and has a decent understanding of Hindu Astrology to be able to separate the wheat from chaff and decide what aspect of astrology is fit for a general encyclopedia. An interested reader is better served reading the topic elsewhere. The article fails WP:NFRINGE by a mile. Venkat TL (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without redirect. I don't see how "(astrology)" accompanying Garbhadhan is a plausible search term. Tayi Arajakate Talk 15:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Genuinely unsure of the answer here, but isn't a redirect helpful in order to avoid breaking the links from articles that currently link to this one? There are many, and sending those links to Garbhadhana instead seems appropriate. But if the problem of redlinks would be resolved without a redirect, no need for one, as I agree the parenthetical phrase is not a plausible search term.~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @LEvalyn, After removing this link from the template at the bottom, there are 0 articles that links to this. See here. So I think this is not a concern. Venkat TL (talk) 06:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Venkat TL, ah, thank you! I hadn't noticed that, just noticed it was odd how many incoming links there were... Totally agreed there is no need for a redirect now. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or (perhaps preferable) Merge to Garbhadhana. Certainly clean up is required, but there is clearly a large literature on the astrological dimension of this Samskara and that should be reflected on wiki (in the same way that we reflect other traditions of astrology). I do not think that many readers who were not already disposed to treat Hindu astrology as true would mistake the article's claims for information on how reproduction etc actually work, but, if the article is giving that impression, that requires correction, not deletion. No evidence has been provided that the citations are "from unreliable fringe theory books and publishers" (Chaturvedi (1977) is published by Motilal Banarsidass). Rather, the problem seems to be that these are largely primary sources, but said primary sources tend to confirm that this information is not fringe, since they're major Hindu texts like Brihat Jataka, Utpala (astronomer), Jataka Parijata, Jataka Tattva. The nominator's claim to be able "to separate the wheat from chaff and decide what aspect of astrology is fit for a general encyclopedia" is not an acceptable ground for deletion, since we are essentially asked to take their word for it - what sources should a reliable passage on Hindu astrological ideas about Garbhadhana be based? Furius (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 04:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Utter nonsense that fails WP:NFRINGE and is written in an WP:INUNIVERSE style. Seems unsalvageable. Modest Genius talk 14:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astrology-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's obvious the article is discussing astrology. Nobody will take it as medical advice. A few qualifying words might help make it even clearer, and remove the in-universe aspect. . How will people know astrology is nonsense if they don't see what it is? Because we tell them so? Seeing it for oneself is much more convincing. Renaming as "Superstitions in Indian astrology" is an error, for this is only one small part of it. Just listing it there is insufficient coverage of what millions of people believe. Even calling it Superstitions in Indian astrology is a little absurd, since the whole system is superstition. I don't think astrology is Fringe--it's pseudo science, a system that pretends to be based on science but isn't. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete violation of WP:NFRINGE, WP:MEDRS. Notice that the sources almost all come from Raman Publications and Motilal Banarsidass without external sources regarding material that is practically plagiarized from them. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I pretty much agree with DGG on this. There seems to be a concerted attack on astrology articles at the moment. My opinion is that we should treat them the same as religious articles. Many religions also make outlandlish claims, but an encyclopaedia can and should cover them. Even my ancient Collins National Encyclopedia which I bought as a child and runs to less then 500 pages finds space for entries on astrology and all the signs of the zodiac. MEDRS is inappropriate to apply to such articles, they are not making medical claims per se. Mary, mother of Jesus is claimed to have given birth as a virgin. That claim is sourced to New Theology Review published by the Catholic Theological Union. Hardly a MEDRS, yet we are comfortable having it in the encyclopaedia. In the same vein we shouldn't reject sources on astrology because they are believers or promoters of astrology. We can still report the claims of astrology. I also agree with DGG that we should reject the FRINGE argument. FRINGE largely applies to scientific claims. We can easily judge whether a scientific claim or theory is fringe by whether or not it conforms to the mainstream scientific view. It is as ridiculous to call astrology fringe as it would be to call Catholicism fringe because it does not conform to mainstream science. Fringe religion would be a religion that did not conform to mainstream religion. Likewise fringe astrology is astrology that does not conform to mainstream astrology. There has been no argument advanced that this particlular article falls into that category. SpinningSpark 17:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Garbhadhana. Looking at these two articles, they seem to both be about the exact same subject, so I'm a bit confused by them currently being two separate articles. There is some information in this article that could be useful to include in the other one, which is why I'm going with merge instead of delete here, but someone who is actually familiar with this topic (unlike me) is going to need to sift through the information in this article and figure out what is worth merging into the other article and what should be discarded altogether. --Zander251 (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - violation of WP:NFRINGE, WP:MEDRS. I agree with Doczilla about the sources, as well. - Naushervan (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Garbhadhana. The 16 Saṃskāra are obviously notable in their own right. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Lucas and keep Taft. MBisanz talk 04:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas, British Columbia[edit]

Lucas, British Columbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Includes:

Two unsourced geostubs, supposedly settlements in British Columbia. However, BC Geographical Names lists both as railway points, not settlements, and I cannot find any other evidence that they are populated places or otherwise pass WP:GEOLAND. Lennart97 (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Canadian Engineer. Monetary Times Print. Company. 1915.
I couldn't find anything for Lucas though. Jumpytoo Talk 20:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lucas (I thought I'd PROD'd all these stupid railway point "settlements" years ago), and merge Taft per Masterhatch since it's historical and barely any information exists about it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Taft, as it has been shown to be a town (at least at one point) and not just a siding. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bacon, Washington[edit]

Bacon, Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A location on a UP line that was abandoned pretty early, although it's a sign of the desolation of the area that the right-of-way is still plain some seventy years since. No evidence of a town that I found. Mangoe (talk) 04:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or even possible Merge to Grant County. Philosophy2 (talk) 07:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unclear what purpose this would serve at the Grant County article, though of course that's easier than spending more time discussing these bulk creations individually. Reywas92Talk 15:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not finding anything on this one. MB 02:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Do Not Merge - We don't typically list former post offices in county articles, and there's no reason to believe that there was ever anything else here. –dlthewave ☎ 02:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - You couldn't find a better example of why "People who worked on the railway gave this place a name, so it must have been a thriving town at some point" is obviously defective logic. FOARP (talk) 09:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Khandge[edit]

Prakash Khandge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although focusing in his research on a fairly narrow academic area, and therefore sometimes quoted as an expert in his field, the subject does not seem to cross the threshold of WP:NACADEMIC for an encylopaedia. The listed publications only assert that he exists and that he specialises in Indian folk dance but I have not been able to find much in terms of his academic achievements or him becoming the subject of a notable publication. I'm proposing to delete or draftity the article. — kashmīrī TALK 15:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep assuming good faith with respect to the references, he's a leader in his field. It's not clear whether or not he would also meet our standards as a dancer. DGG ( talk ) 20:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 02:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What policy indicates the two are mutually exclusive? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you say that he meets NPROF? FYI, NPROF is not dependent on awards. — kashmīrī TALK 11:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROF#C2 can be passed by winning a major nation-level or international-level award for scholarly achievement. The Sangeet Natak Akademi Awards might plausibly be considered major and nation-level, but they are obviously not a scholarly award, so they do not meet that criterion. If winning that award is to be considered notable, it would need to be through WP:NARTIST, not PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So we'd exclude an academic who teaches script writing in a film studies department of a university who wins an Oscar for scripting ... because an Oscar is not an academic award? Commonsense, please. We are talking about an academic who specialises in folk arts performance who has received a major national award for folk arts performance; this is far more notable than an award from the respective academic society which would apply. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you source your statement that Khandge has received a major national award for folk arts performance? The listed article says nothing about it while we need to base our decisions on solid sources. — kashmīrī TALK 11:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's sourced above and in the article. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Nowhere it says that Khandge received the award for any sort of artistic performance as you claim. In fact, no source lists him as an artist – they all consistently call him a researcher and academic. Arguing for WP:NARTIST here would be completely baseless. — kashmīrī TALK 08:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm genuinely trying to understand the distinction being made here. I've never raised ARTIST. AFAICS Khande is a academic who specialises in follk arts performance, he's received a notable award for which the sources indicate is in contribution to folk arts. Not a single point raised in contradiction to those points is backed by sources. What sources indicate that the award is not notable (as against all the press reporting of the awards and their presentation by the President of India or the official status of the Sangeet Natak Akademi)? What sources indicate that the award in Khandge's case is not towards contributions towards folk arts (whether for performance, the study of performance)? The distinctions trying to be drawn here are without difference. It's broad community consensus that notable awards are indications of notable contributions; apply WP:COMMONSENSE here, not WP:BURO. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus that notability can be proved, but also that it should be moved to Potato candy. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Potato Candy Pinwheel[edit]

Potato Candy Pinwheel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Only sources I could find were various[43] recipe[44] websites[45] (seriously, these made up 90% of the google hits), a guide to various candy types[46], and passing mentions in books such as these[47]. Google News simply yields recipe websites. Less luck at Google Scholar, which only has passing mentions of the candy in sources such as [48]. WikiJoeB (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WikiJoeB (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: a legit confection with a legit history even if online searches find primarily recipes. the quantity of recipes gives an indication that there is more depth to find for the interested and willing —¿philoserf? (talk) 08:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Please find me sources that show this legit history, other than recipe websites and blogs. Also, I’m unsure if food has its own notability guideline or not: if it does, can someone please link it here? Thanks. WikiJoeB (talk) 11:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiJoeBee: per my research there does not seem to be. There is WP:Notability (wine topics) but that's the closest I can find and to be honest that does not apply here at all. It seems like there is not any WP:SNG for food, or at least not an easily found one. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 13:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through all of WP:FOOD and found no WP:SNG. —¿philoserf? (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ah well. Thanks for the effort. WikiJoeB (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify (which already exists). Good faith, slightly confused creation. Excellent candidate for draft space incubation and AfC processing. Star Mississippi 16:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Couturier[edit]

Lisa Couturier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lisa Couturier

Inadequately sourced biography of a living person that does not satisfy author notability as written. An article should speak for itself, and this article does not explain why the subject is notable. One reference is a list of works, and the other source has been copied:

Number Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 Texas Tech University Description of subject's works, largely quoted in article No Yes No
2 WordPress Listing of works of subject No No No


Originator is a student who misunderstood the instructions of the instructor and both submitted the article to AFC for review and copied it into article space. Recommend deletion from article space, and leaving draft in draft space to be improved. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning keep. Her book, The Hopes of Snakes, was reviewed in New Scientist and Texas Tech's Mountain Gazette, and featured on NPR. I suspect with a bit more research more reviews of her body of work can be found. pburka (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article appears to have been created by a student editor participating in Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Texas Tech University/Introduction to Livable Futures (Fall) and the same student also created Draft:Lisa Couturier. It's possible that their unfamiliarity with Wikipedia and perhaps a bit pressure to finish their work by some class deadline led them to mistakenly create both a draft and article a few minutes apart. So, if the consensus starts leaning towards delete, then perhaps WP:DRAFTIFY should be considered given the fact that a draft for this subject already exists. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify and process via AFC. Gjs238 (talk)
  • Draftify and process via AFC. I was leaning towards delete but noting comments from Robert McClenon happy to leave for AFC to improve. WCMemail 08:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 10:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Animoca Brands[edit]

Animoca Brands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article, substantially written by a series of SPAs. Sourcing is press releases and funding round announcements, which don't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. In a WP:BEFORE, I was somewhat surprised not to find any independent third-party RS coverage that would pass WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG or any other notability guideline; it was all press release churnalism, cryptocurrency blogs and funding announcements. I'd be happy to be shown wrong, but it would have to be shown. David Gerard (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete churnalism is not SIGCOV. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page is being targeted for deletion by a user who is making false statements regarding "all" the sources used and the nature of the page. The briefest glance through the sources reveals valid citations including Reuters, VentureBeat, NASDAQ, e27, TechCrunch, CoinTelegraph, Europe & World News, and others. The nature of the content is obviously factual and informational. Additionally, during its several years as a listed company on the ASX, the company's press releases would have had to pass the strict publication requirements and review of Australia's primary stock exchange. User David Gerard is invited to cite the exact text that he describes (but never identifies) as "promotional" and specify exactly how he considers NASDAQ, Reuters, TechCrunch et al to be inappropriate sources or as he claims "blogs". --116.49.191.177 (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)— 116.49.191.177 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • I suggest reviewing WP:CORPDEPTH, and not claiming crypto sites as valid cites - David Gerard (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Noted. I suggest reviewing the obvious misrepresentations that David Gerard makes concerning this page. Even if a leading subject matter news source like CoinTelegraph is considered unacceptable, the page still contains other citations that are mainstream and independent (Reuters, Nasdaq, etc.), which demonstrate David Gerard's characterizations to be false. Additionally, David Gerard has still not supported his claim that this is a "promotional" article. He has been "shown wrong" as he had previously requested and is invited to contribute to (rather than persist in his efforts to delete) this article for a notable technology company.116.49.191.177 (talk) 06:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources fail to meet the relevant standard for the topic. XOR'easter (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are almost entirely about fundraising, and questioning how valid its "unicorn" status is.
You're doing that thing again - which you previously undertook to stop doing - where you post a massive, filibustering wall of text, and you loudly assert that this is significant coverage for the purposes of notability when your sources don't check out and your assertions contradict the requirements of WP:CORPDEPTH - David Gerard (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have to concur. Fundraising noise doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH, and if there is a sliver of decent reporting there, we still face the problem that the current article is a pile of superficiality. XOR'easter (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - above is an extensive list of notable WP:RS sources in which Animoca Brands is the primary focus. The list quotes the coverage itself to establish notability. Against these several independent and reliable pieces of significant coverage about Animoca Brands, user David Gerard has provided only unsupported assertions that are demonstrably false. Given his insistence on false claims, and being an individual who earns an income by writings that are highly skeptical of the crypto industry, user David Gerard is referred to WP:COI.116.49.191.177 (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notwithstanding the ongoing problematic approach taken at AfDs by Cunard, something which has been pointed out on multiple occasions in the past, there are references from analyst companies which are in-depth and contain "Independent Content" and meet WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. For example, Cunard has linked to reports by Baillieu Holst and Edison above. HighKing++ 11:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They are worth a billion dollars, and get ample coverage. Dream Focus 23:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant coverage from secondary sources. Tame (talk) 06:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a good amount of sources from notable and independent websites that describe the company in detail.Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Quantity over quality problems. Sources severely lack depth. Grayfell (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cunard's WP:THREE + analyst reports meet CORPDEPTH and show the company meets NCORP. Jumpytoo Talk 21:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per HighKing. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep — As laid out in discussions above, it seems there is a sufficient amount of direct and non-trivial coverage on the company beyond just fundraising notices. Though it's worth qualifying my !vote by noting that virtually the entire article, as it currently stands, should be rewritten to convey substantive information about the subject and its products/notable business as a whole rather than focusing primarily on financing figures... after trimming off non-RS cited material of course. If such an encyclopedic overview rooted in RS cannot be salvaged over some reasonable time, perhaps another deletion discussion ought to take place at that time. HiddenLemon // talk 18:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question If all of the above references are good ones, why are they not all in the article? The effort of finding them, extracting material from them, and putting them into the AFD could have placed them into the article instead? Aoziwe (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hoff Productions[edit]

Hoff Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article created by a COI editor, and largely edited by a team of single purpose accounts. No indication of notability after a BEFORE search - all I could find were primary sources that were not independent, social media, and PR. Does not meet NCOMPANY nor GNG criteria for inclusion. Bringing it here for the community to provide feedback. Netherzone (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this article has 3 "citation needed" tags and 15 "better source needed" tags, which is unusually much for an article of this length. Philosophy2 (talk) 07:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_December_8&oldid=1060865917"